Dear Belly,

You are right that democracy is not the best system.
The major flaw of democracies is that they allow the tyranny of majorities over minorities.

Majorities, if significant, get what they want every day, but minorities get nothing and can be persecuted. The Senate is one of the few places where this can be somewhat mitigated.

As a hypothetical example, suppose the majority dislikes avocados, so they legislate for avocados to become illegal. Now suppose for some, perhaps 5%, avocados are a very important part of their diet and they feel that they cannot do without it, so they form the minor avocado-party, elect it to the senate, then using horse-trading they can protect their vital interests.

As a more realistic example, suppose the government legislates to cancel all family-visits in prisons. Perhaps 96% of us know nobody who is imprisoned so we may not care, but for families of prisoners nothing is more important than seeing their loved ones, so they could form a party accordingly.

We cannot give up such an important feature because one day, you Belly, might find yourself on the receiving end of the stick for something that is most dear to you.

yuyutsu do you understand your posts suggests the very thing you complain about? are you not saying minority's, to prove we are fair, should rule over majority's?it remains my view we need not FOREVER use the Westminster system just because it was once the best,and no! not thinking of a house of Lords,a day will come, maybe has, when voters will weary of the sheer silliness of party switching senators and small, even unloved, party's over ruling elected government

Yuyutsu,

If democracy is not the best system, will you please reveal what the best system is. I'm sure you had an alternative worked out before you made that statement.

Dear Belly,

Minorities can never rule in a democracy, they simply don't have the numbers. What a senate gives minorities, is a bit of negotiating space that can at times protect their members from unpalatable decrees by majorities.

Now the senate as it stands is not the only way to provide these protections: two alternate ways are to introduce either proportional representation in the lower house, or direct representation, for example as in http://voteflux.org - if any of the two is adopted, then a senate is no longer required.

---

Dear Ttbn,

The best is to recognise the autonomy and dignity of each individual, holding high to the value that nobody has a right to rule over others without their consent.

Instead, everything is done by voluntary agreement of all affected, including the initial joining in a state/society. Government then just manages the common interests rather than rules over people.

Hi Yuyutsu,

My grand-dad was an Anarchist, a Wobbly. Anarchists believe that some magic, in the optimal conditions, can happen and -bing ! - everybody will suddenly get on with each other, and there will never again be disagreement in the land.

My study of revolutions, as a once-Marxist and Maoist [smart-arse computer says 'moist'], suggests that there are three sorts of people most seriously investing their lives in revolutions (which is what you might be advocating):

* the workers, those who welcome revolution and the abolition of property and exploitation, etc., and just want to contribute to the common good;

* the managers and planners who have to do there arduous task of putting their Utopian blueprint into practice, without the slightest change (at least, fr the first seek);

* and regrettably, given the pervasive presence of enemies of the people, the exterminators, the executioners, the torturers.

Of course, most Marxists and ex-Marxists start off in the first category, wanting to 'serve the people', but very quickly realise that the scene is infested with the maggots of the second two categories, the real rulers. Fortunately for those of us in non-communist countries, we can opt out, after perhaps decades of agonising over it all. Pity the poor bastards in former community countries and currently in China and North Korea.

Democracy is imperfect. Perhaps we all should get used to -shock, horror ! - an imperfect world, one which will be imperfect forever. But edging slowly, ever closer, to a moving target called perfection.

Of course, there should be protections for the opinions of minorities in democracies - majority-rule doesn't have to mean only-majority-rule, or some sort of winner-take-all.

Nothing is, or ever will be, perfect, although Usain Bolt and Serena Williams come close. But people like that are models, exemplars, for the rest of us fractious, argumentative, pig-ignorant lot.

Joe

SR,

You gave perfect examples of where an undemocratically elected senate blocked the policies of a democratically elected lower house, where the government of the day was trying unwind or compensate for some of the biggest and unbudgeted spending policies in Australian history by the previous government.

It was also the Senate that blocked Labor's first carbon tax that led to Rudd being knifed by Juliar, and if the coalition had wanted, it could have blocked just about any Rudd legislation.

Other than blocking legislation, the Senate has no real other purposes.

The options to reform the Senate would be:
1 To make the Senate seats proportional to the population of the state.
2 Give the Senate limited blocking power (say 1 year or 2 vetos per bill)
3 Abolish the Senate and refer some legislation to COAG for approval.
4 Abolish the Senate.